Share This

About The Author

Nona Raybern
Nona writes things called words and puts them into sentences that are supposed to make sense, but sometimes don't. Writing this bio would be one of those times where it don't. She also likes grammer and speeling. And bourbon. And OH MY GOD, IS THAT A CUPCAKE?

ErzengelDesLichtes

He probably spent all his luck just surviving those explosions.

Although I’m somewhat suspicious that he’s being targeted.

MynameisBlarney

I play Dungeons and Dragons Online, I guess that makes me a high-tech devil worshipper, or something….

ErzengelDesLichtes

I’ve played lots of D&D video games, so I guess I’m in the boat with you. Heck, I’ve even PLAYED a devil in one of them. A chaotic good tiefling, specifically. People had a tendency to assume my character was evil, and it was always fun to show them wrong.

MynameisBlarney

LOL
Most of my characters in DDO are of various “good” alignments. There is no option to be lawful, chaotic, or neutral evil in the game at this time.
Only variations of good or neutral.
Which is fine with me, I don’t think I’ve ever played anything other than
chaotic good or true neutral, unless playing a cleric or paladin, of course. Those have to be lawful good.

ErzengelDesLichtes

It’s hard for me to play evil, ever. But I kinda want to make a chaotic evil Aasimir (angel blooded) just to have the opposite subversion of expectations. They’d prejudge the character as a paragon of good, and then find her shaking them down and threatening them or whatnot.

SumAnon

How can being evil be hard?!?!? You just do whatever you want.

MynameisBlarney

Only if you’re chaotic evil.
Lawful or neutral evil kinda play by the rules… the rules of EVIIIIILLLLLLL!!!!

SumAnon

Well, NE characters do whatever they can get away with.

ErzengelDesLichtes

Because I feel physically ill when I kill or hurt innocent people. That’s generally requisite to being considered fully in the evil alignment.

SumAnon

Just don’t think of them as ‘real people’

ErzengelDesLichtes

And ruin my immersion?

SumAnon

Selective emersion / objectification

Edit: or put it another way: no one is every truly innocent. Someone always has something they need to pay for. Just get creative on how much they gotta ‘pay.’

ErzengelDesLichtes

It’s just not something I can do. It’s not a choice to feel physically ill, you know. Although I could desensitize myself to it, I’m like Wreathy in that I’d prefer not to. If they’re not hurting me and mine, and they’re not hurting others, why should I hurt them? Stealing from them is perfectly fine, though.

SumAnon

Ahhhh but stealing can be terribly harmful. You never know how it could effect someone. Better to ensure that they will never hurt … ever again.

MynameisBlarney

HA! I can’t bring myself to do harm to an innocent NPC either, lol.

SumAnon

Wussy

MynameisBlarney

YER MA!

SumAnon

Me ma?

MynameisBlarney

Aye.
Yer ma.

SumAnon

She’s partial to periwinkle blue.

MynameisBlarney

Well…that IS a nice shade of blue.

PhiloteSplitter

At least in the tabletop version it’s usually most fun to pick neutral if you can, leaves more options open. (Hell yes you can murder the hell out of that guy for his pants.) I always liked clerics, but I guess that’s the downside.

ErzengelDesLichtes

I like playing a high charisma, high diplomacy character so that I can just talk him out of his pants. …Um, I suppose a female character helps with that too. :-P
Either way, it’s not evil, though it would be chaotic.

PhiloteSplitter

Yeah, if ya gotta be good, be chaotic. Although what you actually say makes a lot more difference than charisma in the tabletop version, it is really cool whenever you can defuse the situation with words alone.
In an adventure heavy game playing thief is always fun, you get to be the first one anywhere new, and do all kinds of weird stuff.
I’ve been playing a Monk (2nd advanced edition) and they have random bonuses in weird places, but aren’t particularly good anywhere. Like, they don’t take falling damage if they’re near a wall, or they have good bare-handed fighting.

ErzengelDesLichtes

As far as your first paragraph, that depends on the DM. We have an understanding that it’s about the roll, not the role. Say, my sorceress started with 18 in charisma, has a history that improves diplomacy but reduces intimidation, a feat that improves all speaking skills, took a feat to allow cross-class skills to cost 1 skill point instead of 2, a familiar that improves diplomacy, and maxed out diplomacy and bluff. And that’s by level 5 (IIRC) in plainclothes. She’s also wearing a circlet that improves charisma, and a ring that gives a good boost to diplomacy. If all else fails, I start tossing around charms and dominates. I’ve made the most pathetic excuses for diplomacy, and because of my skill levels I couldn’t fail.

PhiloteSplitter

Oh haha, I sense 3rd or 4th edition in you. Yeah, it does depend on the DM, as well as the edition. Editions 3 and up are a lot more rule and number heavy. Not necessarily a bad thing, but it means you have to be more familiar with the rulebook, and the DM has less power.

ErzengelDesLichtes

3.5 usually, yeah.

PhiloteSplitter

It’s just a matter of taste. The later editions are a lot more like video games, where your character has many facets and skills, and the DM is there to keep everything making sense. Also each character has more abilities.
The early editions are much faster moving, and easier to pick up, as well as relying on your own problem solving and decision making more. Also the DM can do more interesting stuff.

It ends up being a matter of what kind of game you like, personally we switched to 2nd edition after a while because we found it was more fun for us, and our DM was awesome so there weren’t any pitfalls. It’s just what kind of game you like more.

Bling Nye

If you play 3.5, check out Pathfinder. Our group played 3.5 for a loooong time, basically ignored 4.0 when it came out, but Pathfinder is pretty good.

SumAnon

3.5 REPRESEEEEEEEEENT

MynameisBlarney

In DDO, monks can be extremely powerful. You can be a light monk, (low-ish damage, but super high reflex and will saves and some healing, can also resurrect at higher levels) or a dark monk (think ninja with dark chi energies) and the rogues, can either be trappers/lockpicker builds, or assassins with a very high damage capability, but very squishy.

My favorite class in DDO right now is the Artificer. Has a bit of magic and steampunk-ish tech, can spot and disarm traps, and with the right specs and gear, some of the biggest damage in game. Also, they have a mechanical dog they can summon.

Pretty cool stuff IMHO.

PhiloteSplitter

I’ve never played D&D Online, is it like many other MMOs, or does it focus more on the party and decision making like the tabletop version?
If it’s an MMO, I try and stay away from those. I once got into Runescape, and realized a year or two in that I was spending a lot of time and having very little fun.

MynameisBlarney

I’ve not played many mmo’s really, so I can’t say how different it is than most others. But it does, supposedly, have a unique combat system, there is no auto-attack like they have in WoW.

For myself, and my guildies, the first rule is to have fun. anything else is secondary.

Some folks take it way too seriously and are a chore to run with.
How far you want to take your gaming experience is entirely up to you. Some folks are solo players only. Others are casual players that don’t worry about the latest and greatest item that drops in some PITA quest once every blue moon. Others are hardcore grinders that have the best gear, multiple past lives and can pretty much destroy any boss on any difficulty level.

Then you have folks like me. Former pen and paper D&D players that found others like him. And we’re in between the casual and the hardcore….closer to casual though.

XXm0rt

I play DDO casually and I tend to solo… which works just fine for me since my class of choice is almost always warrior or paladin. If I’m not running into battle screaming incoherently and waving my weapon like a madman (madwoman?) then somethings not right… I’ve tried playing mages before because the allure of being able top cast badass pretty spells is so awesome, but I always forget that I’m not a tank as soon as I get into a battle and inevitably die ten seconds into the first battle at the bottom of a gangbanging monster heap…

MynameisBlarney

LEEEEEEROY JAAAAAANKIIIINS!

I used to play solo only. But there are some quests, and of course, raids, that require a full party. And within said quests and raids, there are shineys that I must acquire. But, not so shiney that I will grind endlessly, or join PUG after PUG in order to get them.
I tend to just jump on whatever toon is needed for my guildies in order to get what they need, which, usually gets me fat loots and xp, and sometimes…and by sometimes, I really mean very fucking rarely, a shiney rare item drop.

What I like about DDO is that it has a lot of lore to back up the gameplay. Monsters and quest arcs that I’m familiar with.

But always remember, in DDO, it’s not a bug, it’s a feature!

MynameisBlarney

I usually went chaotic good, or neutral good with the tabletop version. Because most of the other players were of good-ish alignments, and if I chose an alignment too far removed from that it would cause trouble amongst the party. At least that’s what our DM told us.

PhiloteSplitter

So it would, although it’s always interesting whenever another player turns against you! One thing I’ve always wanted to try but haven’t is to have a game in which all the players are evil. Just get as much power as possible!

Bling Nye

I DM’d one where a player hid his alignment (plus no one ever actually used a spell to discover it) and over in-game time had created, on the sly, several cursed items he gave as ‘gifts’ to the other party members, that had triggered effects that would lie dormant until he activated them with a key word. Basically he ended up rendering them all helpless or dead when it came time to collect a massive treasure at the end, and while everyone else was mostly pissed off (especially in-character), they had some begrudging respect for it being very well played and we all had a good laugh about it. It was absolutely hilarious, high points for creativity; and the next DM up in our group actually used that event in his story and had that character recur later on as an NPC… Good times.

PhiloteSplitter

Oh hell yes, best thing about D&D (especially early editions) is the only rule is the rule of fun. Sounds clever! I can only imagine the glares, and boundless references for years to come.

Once, I missed a session. When I got back, my cleric was unconscious, so I couldn’t do anything. As I watched, a teammate failed a strength check and threw my poor unconscious cleric into a pit filled with churning gears. Couldn’t even resurrect him.

Bling Nye

Could’ve used mage hand to pull some scraps of you out and used a True Resurrection spell. Assuming the party could cast/afford it, or the DM was forgiving enough to let your group find a generous priest to do it for you or something… Actually, I don’t think you even need the scraps for True Resurrection. But that sounds like a pretty hilarious mishap.

We have a house rule about rolling crits… three natural 20’s or three natural 1’s. Roll 3 natural 20’s and your character gets a free Wish spell. Roll 3 natural 1’s and your character ignobly dies. One player rolled a 1 on an attack, another 1 to confirm, then a third… I think what happened was they ended up tripping and falling with their dagger into their eye and brain, or something, killing them instantly. It was unfortunate. And hilarious. Luckily another character had a spell that let them revive and restore a dead character within one round. Unfortunately, that character wasn’t within a round of their move speed, even if running, and it was a touch spell.

Crazy thing is, in the 10+ years of playing, we’ve only had one instance of three 20’s in a row, and two instances of three 1’s in a row. And the two crit failures that resulted in deaths happened to the same player.

PhiloteSplitter

Well, 3 of a specific number in a row is a 1/8000 chance, I’m surprised you had that many.
But yeah, the situation made my resurrection impossible, even with your suggestions. It’s ok though, stuff like that is what makes D&D fun! Got to play a thief after that, they’re always interesting.

Bling Nye

Totally. I love playing. And sometimes character deaths are quite liberating, especially when you get to change to a new class. One time I got bored with a Ranger and he eventually became essentially suicidal, as a ranged fighter with a ton of ranged weapon feats, he started going shoulder to shoulder with the tank fighter and couldn’t take the damage as well. Quite a noble, if foolish sacrifice on his part (but hey, I was over the ranger thing and I wanted to play an emaciated half-orc sorcerer of demonic blood line, that looked like Alice Cooper, instead).

Bling Nye

Ok, I’m sorry, but I kind of had to do the math on this just because I got curious about how many times it could have potentially happened… Ok, so a 1/8000 chance of rolling three 20’s or three 1’s.

6 players, each rolling a d20 (on average) say 30 times a night = 180 rolls/night. One night a week for 10 years, minus a few for times we missed, = about 500 sessions. 180 x 500 = 90,000 rolls/session. 90,000/8,000 = 11.25.

I’m no mathologist by any means, but I think we’ve been missing out on a few of those. :)

PhiloteSplitter

Well, you also have to consider that some of the sets of 3 will be distributed among more than one person. If you always roll again after rolling a 1 or 20, than those rolls cannot each count in the chances separately.
I don’t know enough chance statistics to be able to figure all this out in only a few minutes though, so if you want an accurate computation, you’re on your own.

Bling Nye

So….. 180 rolls a night, 2/20 chance of getting a 1 or a 20, so 18 chances a night to start a critical … 500 of those is 9000 chances to critical. The odds of rolling the same number again are 1/400, so 22.5… and the odds of a third time are 1/8000 so 0.003. Huh. Or would it be 9000/8000 = 1.125? No idea if I’m doing that right… and my head isn’t cooperating. So. Yeah. :)

Ruminum

TECHNOPAGAN!!!! BURN HIM!!!

Anjiko-Z

Wait, he’s still going on about evils of D&D? I thought we already covered that back in the 80’s.

Jadiwin

Yeah, they made a movie about the evils of D&D in the 80’s starring a young Tom Hanks.

MynameisBlarney

Mazes and Monsters.

Which, oddly enough, only made want to play D&D even more.

PhiloteSplitter

I never understood people thinking D&D is evil, it’s nothing more than playing a particularly in-depth game with your friends. If anything, it’s better than most games because you actually have to think, and create, and… well… have friends! Fun as hell.

MynameisBlarney

It’s that whole creative thinking part the xtians have a problem with.

PhiloteSplitter

I wonder if it doesn’t also have something to do with the pop-culture view. Anytime I see a reference in anything mainstream they’re all dressed up in robes and shit and do spell incantations. Tell you what, the best representation of a D&D match I’ve ever seen is “The Gamers” movie. That thing is hilarious.

Bling Nye

Have you seen the second one, the Dorkness Rising? THAT shit is hilarious (I love when the guy playing the female character forgets his character is female…)

PhiloteSplitter

Wait… THERE’S A SECOND ONE?! Why haven’t I heard of this? Thanks for letting me know! I just found it on YouTube in parts, gonna have to watch it now.